Allahabad High Court
Saurabh Vohra And Another vs D.M. Barabanki And 2 Others on 27 March, 2025
Author: Pankaj Bhatia
Bench: Pankaj Bhatia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:17640
Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2680 of 2024
Petitioner :- Saurabh Vohra And Another
Respondent :- D.M. Barabanki And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- In Person
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
1. Counter affidavit filed today in Court is taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.
3. Present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 05.03.2024 whereby the application filed under Section 34 for execution of an earlier order was rejected.
4. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner was landlord of a property which was given on rent to the District Udyog Kendra, Barabanki. As he was restrained from seeking eviction in view of the bar created under Section 21(8) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to 'the Act'), he moved an application for enhancement of rent which was allowed by means of an order dated 24.03.2007. The landlord as well as the tenant were aggrieved against the said fixation of rent which was fixed at Rs.14,391/- per month, thus, they preferred an appeal. The said appeal came to be dismissed and the order dated 24.03.2007 was affirmed. Subsequently, even in the writ jurisdiction, no interference was made. Thus, the rent of the premises under the tenancy of respondent no.3 was fixed at Rs.14,391/-. As the rent was not paid and even the property was not vacated, the petitioner filed an application under Section 34(3) of the Act seeking execution of the order of enhancement, which has been dismissed by means of the order dated 05.03.2024 holding that no amount was due and payable as per the report submitted by the respondents.
5. Contention of the petitioner who appears in person is that as the rate was fixed and the property was not vacated in time, it was incumbent upon the respondents to have paid the said amount and thus, his application under Section 34(3) of the Act was maintainable and ought to have been allowed.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents/State, on the other hand, argues that the order impugned is correct in law and requires no interference; according to him, no amount was due and payable as the entire amount, according to him, was paid. He further argues that the possession was also handed over.
7. Be that as it may, Section 21(8) of the Act restricts the right of the landlord in seeking eviction from the premises which are under the tenancy of State Government or a local authority or a public sector corporation or a recognized educational institution; the right is conferred, in such cases, upon the District Magistrate to re-fix the rent at the rates as prescribed in the proviso to Section 21(8) of the Act. In terms of the said powers, the rent of the premises in occupation of respondent no.3 was fixed. In the entire Act, there is no provision for execution of the said order, the consequences of not following/paying the rent as fixed are that the landlord is entitled to file an application under Section 20 of the Act seeking eviction and a decree of arrears of rent. The application filed under Section 34(3) of the Act was prima-facie misplaced.
8. Section 34(3) of the Act is quoted herein below:
"34(3) Where any costs or other sum of money awarded under this Act by the District Magistrate or the prescribed authority or the appellate or revisional authority remains unpaid, he or it may issue a certificate of recovery in respect thereof in the prescribed form, and any person in whose favour such certificate is issued may apply to the Court of Small Causes having jurisdiction under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, for recovery of the amount specified in the certificate. Such court shall thereupon execute the certificate or cause the same to be executed in the same manner and by the same procedure as if it were a decree for payment of money made by itself in a suit.
9. On a plain reading of the said provision, it is clear that the said provision has been incorporated to empower the District Magistrate or the prescribed authority to take action for non-payment of the cost or "sum of money awarded under this Act". The fixation of the rent under Section 21(8) of the Act can neither be termed as a cost nor an award of money, thus, the application filed by the petitioner under Section 34(3) of the Act itself was not maintainable.
10. At this stage, reliance is placed by the petitioner on the judgment in the case of Murli Singh (Deceased by LRs.) & Ors. v. Ram Singh & Anr.; AIR 2007 UTTARAKHAND 80 wherein the Court had directed payment of rent/damages against the tenant till the grant of delivery/possession. He further places reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Shiv Kumar v. Sajida and Ors.; Civil Appeal No.2460 of 1997 dated 27.03.1997, which held that the power under Section 21 can be exercised against any person who is found in possession of the premises.
11. I am afraid that both the said judgments have no applicability in the present case.
12. In view of the foregoing discussion, no interference is called for. The petitioner would be at liberty to file a suit for decree of arrears of rent, if so advised, in accordance with law.
13. Present petition is dismissed in above terms.
Order Date :- 27.3.2025
nishant
